Germany is directly responsible for the establishment of the state of Israel.

This is so because Germany exterminated six million Jews in the mid twentieth century, which event roused the survivors to seek a sanctuary, Israel.

This being the case, one would think that a morally regenerate Germany freed of the Nazis would take extraordinary steps to assure the survival and well-being of Israel. That has not happened however.

Germany should LEAD the Western diplomatic, economic and military efforts to stop the would-be destroyers of Israel. Instead Germany today sits on its hands while growing violence swirls around Israel, threatening it on every side, with no indication that the status quo will change.

Therefore it can be concluded that Germany is a morally deficient nation.

This lack of moral sufficiency, this incompleteness is manifested not only in its lack of significant effort on behalf of Israel but its lack of foreign policy efforts to avert genocide in Libya (UN RES 1973) and its failure at the recent G-20 to support efforts to eliminate WMD in Syria.

This is damning evidence that Germany is a satellite of the Russian despot, who murders and suppresses his own people with impunity. Further evidence is Germany's shirking its solemn contract with NATO to devote 2% of its GDP to defense and Germany's ignoring the appeal of its ally under the terms of NATO to provide more troops in Afghanistan.

Germany's partisans here will not respond to any of these facts.

Rather than address these burning issues, the posters on this site are content to resort of name calling, flurries of wiki spam, obfuscation, rage and downright lies.

This is the surest indication of the lack of any meaningful rebuttal to the fact, and a lamentable proof, that Germany is morally deficient.

Decades before the Holocaust the Zionist movement's central aims were the creation of a Jewish National Home and cultural center on Palestine territory.

Jewish immigration to Palestine was facilitated immediately after WW I based on the 1917 Balfour agreement. In the early period of the "Jewish homeland", from the mid-1920s on, most Jewish immigrants came from Russia and the Ukraine where they fled Stalin's communism.

However, the native Arab Palestinians were never asked if they agreed to the Balfour Declaration. After centuries of foreign Turkish rule, they detested to be ruled again by foreigners, and they were convinced that the British occupiers favored the Jewish immigrants from outside Palestine – the Zionists – at their expense.

They disliked the British-Jewish Balfour Declaration and its reference to the native Arab population as "existing non-Jewish communities." And they also disliked being referred to in the League of Nation's Mandate Agreement as "the other sections."

The native Palestinians began to attack the Jewish new arrivals. In response Jewish immigrants in Jerusalem organized a self-defense league. It came to more clashes. In response the British mandate authority forbade the carrying of arms and imprisoned the Jewish group's leader.

As a result Jews set up a clandestine organization for defense, the so-called Haganah. The Arab Palestinians also organized defense units in order to stop the massive Jewish immigration into what the Arab Palestinians considered their homeland. All this, the Jewish mass immigration and the Arab Palestinian resistance, took place from 1921 onward, way before the holocaust happened.

After WW II, the Zionist movement focused on the creation of a "Jewish state". For most immigrants this meant ethnic cleansing of the native population. This ethnic cleansing process is ongoing, directed against the native Palestinian population. This is the true reason for the conflict in Israel-Palestine TODAY . . . and certainly not the holocaust three generations ago (to whatever extent this horrible experience might still influence the soul of the Israelis today.

However, all German postwar governments stood loyal at Israel's side. They help with material goods (recently donated submarines come to mind) wherever they can.

But I do not think that German troops will ever involve in military conflicts again, neither for nor against Israel. This was, last but not least, one of the Western Allies' declared war objectives.

We cannot know what the state of Israel sans Holocaust would have looked like or when it would have been created. We have only the events as they happened. So you cannot avert Germany's responsibility for the current status of the Middle East.

Today Israel stands alone. The White House has turned its back on Israel.

All you have done here is factor in every variable for the survival of Israel except for those of malevolence, irrationality, vengeance and accident.

By not LEADING the West's efforts, particularly as the US stumbles and Iran and Russia surge, and by not causing the weight of Europe to fall heavily on the side of Israel; those unfactored variables are the margin by which Germany fails Israel- and itself.

Germany has simply not placed itself decisively in the scale on the side of Israel's survival. Given Germany's unique role in the creation of the state of Israel, this is moral deficiency on the part of Germany.

Separately, I never cease to be amazed by those that believe that retaliation would be any compensation whatsoever if Israel were to be greviously wounded by its enemies.

The weak reed of deterrence must be woven into the reeds of diplomatic, economic and other military preparations in order to obviate the need for retaliation.

Germany is the vital missing component in this combination. She bears a unique responsibility and possesses all the capabilities to join the abilities of the Jewish state to give the best possible array of defenses against a war of annihilation.

Where is Germany in the face of the smiling Iranian nuclear weaponization currently ongoing? Nowhere meaningful. This is why Germany may be said to be morally deficient. Shame.

"Nie wieder soll von deutschem Boden Krieg ausgehen!" It was not only a war objective of the Western allies, this ethic principle was also enshrined in the February 1949 constitution of the federal republic. In the course of time this postulate become an intrinsic part of Germany's modern-time identity.

Germany is directly responsible for the establishment of the state of Israel.

This is so because Germany exterminated six million Jews in the mid twentieth century, which event roused the survivors to seek a sanctuary, Israel.

This being the case, one would think that a morally regenerate Germany freed of the Nazis would take extraordinary steps to assure the survival and well-being of Israel. That has not happened however.

Germany should LEAD the Western diplomatic, economic and military efforts to stop the would-be destroyers of Israel. Instead Germany today sits on its hands while growing violence swirls around Israel, threatening it on every side, with no indication that the status quo will change.

Therefore it can be concluded that Germany is a morally deficient nation.

This lack of moral sufficiency, this incompleteness is manifested not only in its lack of significant effort on behalf of Israel but its lack of foreign policy efforts to avert genocide in Libya (UN RES 1973) and its failure at the recent G-20 to support efforts to eliminate WMD in Syria.

This is damning evidence that Germany is a satellite of the Russian despot, who murders and suppresses his own people with impunity. Further evidence is Germany's shirking its solemn contract with NATO to devote 2% of its GDP to defense and Germany's ignoring the appeal of its ally under the terms of NATO to provide more troops in Afghanistan.

Germany's partisans here will not respond to any of these facts.

Rather than address these burning issues, the posters on this site are content to resort of name calling, flurries of wiki spam, obfuscation, rage and downright lies.

This is the surest indication of the lack of any meaningful rebuttal to the fact, and a lamentable proof, that Germany is morally deficient.

"Western diplomatic, economic and military efforts to stop the would-be destroyers of Israel."

You are a malicious liar.

The US aggression against Syria has nothing to so with saving Israel.

The US is arming Al-Quaeda is Syria. Oh dear do you think Al-Quaeda is a friend of Israel?

AL QAEDA-LINKED SYRIA GROUP ENJOYING USAID

"Recent images from the front line of the Syrian war suggest that terrorists are enjoying the small comforts of U.S. equipment and supplies that are meant to aide legitimate rebels, who are part of the Free Syrian Army. This appears to prove all the concerns among U.S. lawmakers and analysts that aid to the Syrian rebels could end up in the hands of Al Qaeda.

The terror group is known inside Syria by its acronym, ISIS. It is an Al Qaeda-linked jihad organization and recently it announced a campaign of “cleansing evil” at pro-Western opposition groups inside Syria."

Who is murdering in Russia ?
Where in the whole world there are more citizens in prisons as in the USA?
Russia has abolished capital punishment.
America has been enforcing capital punishments by keeping people 30 and 40 years in their death rows.
Guantanomo, Abu-Ghraib and usual water boarding of any suspect is an American speciality which can happen to everyone who gets in trouble with American authorities.
Americans have been spied out completely over many years worse than in any kind of a dictatorship.

Russia is indeed not perfect at all but quite different to the USA you do not instantly go into jail for weeks or months just for being speedy like in the USA.

So it is more than hopeful if Germany will sit for ever on its hands:)
And indeed Russia is the best ally Germany ever had since WW II.
The Red Army left Germany as promised in 1990 while many American occupation forces still are stationed all around in Germany for spying out the Germans and oppressing the population.

DISFUNCTIONAL DEMOCRAzY ! Surely the whole idea of voting is to have it result in a FUNCTIONING Government. By diluting the voting universe with any number of small, irrelevant parties, one ends up with a pea-soup of non-descript policies that in effect no-one really voted for. If Ms. Merkel now has to make all manner of policy concessions to possible left-wing, spendthrift 'Social Democrats' or nutty 'Greens', the voters who trusted her with their vote will be defrauded. This is not 'Democracy', if it ends up in political horse trading where macho egos compete with sensible ideas for a reasonably healthy administration.

If the German electorate wanted to give Merkel that absolute power you claim she and her party deserves, then the German voters would have given her an absolute majority of the votes. The German electorate certainly didn't want a remake of the previous coalition. That's why her 'campaigned' coalition partner was punished at the polls. Now she has to submit to the voters' will, find another coalition partner, form a new coalition and make "policy concessions". This is lived democracy to a tee. The will of the electorate suggests the SPD as her first choice.

And this makes sense too: In the eyes of many voters in Germany the country needs a fairer distribution of her commonly acquired productivity gains. I'm able to relate to that - in spite of my conservative basic attitude - in view of the fact that when it comes to household wealth Germany lags behind its Eurozone partners with some studies even suggesting that median household wealth in places like Spain, Greece or Cyprus is far, far greater than that of Germany (contrary to previous assumptions).

"According to a recording released by the website The Lab Europe 1 , Eric Doligé, Loiret senator said Tuesday during the UMP parliamentary day held in the National Assembly: "I have you to say that I ' have a killer instinct right now. I'm like most people, I can not stand Holland and his gang!""
...
"A little later, the senator added: "We would have avoided to take over us and we do everything to get rather ... well, I have a list of people that I can give on who to shoot , huh There are forty, it is all the government "His speech caused some laughter in the room, and Senator-Mayor of Marseille Jean-Claude Gaudin, coward..: "I can give Kalashnikovs!""http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fww...

How affects the pole to the rest of Europe? http://cgratingagency.blogspot.com.es/, week 39 updated. European countries rating classification and risk premium trend updated every week. Citizens also can assess the economic reality and provide our opinion based on real facts and data​​.

I suppose its none of my business, not being a German, but the FDP supporters need to upgrade their leadership! The only way out of the socialist mess is free economics. Obviously, the FDP is not getting that message out. A strong and effective FDP is Germany's only hope. Merkel is just a typical politician who can't be trusted. She will go in whichever direction the political winds blow.

If the AfD adopted the FDP economic platform, that would perhaps be the best solution, but right now, it seems the AfD is solely focused on being anti-euro. I would also support that position if I were German. Germany should get out of the Euro.

Some commenters earlier accused the German political landscape -with good reason- of being 'dull'.

However, if you're right then future federal election campaigns will - most likely - be way more interesting, since the FDP must try to regain its former support base that went in droves to the newly founded AfD.

According to Forschungsgruppe Wahlen: At least "450.000 voters switched from FDP to AFD". Talking to some of the FDP's former clientele, it's most likely many more.

The leaders of the FDP surrendered their very own 'natural habitat' to the newcomers from AfD, without even trying to put up a fight . . . And they paid a heavy price for their 'CDU-streamlined' attitude.

Fact is, the FDP's intrinsic constituency has a natural love for individual freedom. Therefore, to protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and supranational organizations used to be the FDP's very own school of thought. Being opposed to surrendering basic civil and political rights to the unelected 'gubernators of power' in Brussels and Frankfurt should come naturally to a party that once claimed to be the guardian of individual freedom.

By "not doing their job", the German Liberals proved to their former electorate that they have become obsolete. This is why they quite rightly received their comeuppance!

In future the FDP will have to regain the lost votes from the AfD in the German political landscape . . . or the AfD will establish itself as the new "freedom-seeking alternative" to the "has-become-obsolete" FDP.

Not only the leadership but their content (programme). Obviously they thought by mistake that in politics labels matter more than the contents, a lesson and attitude they probably learned when watching too often the trading at the stock markets.

Also I oppose your view that all (some may certainly) health of a society is coming from free economics, mainly because modern economies tend to outsource some costs, for example to future generations, or to quasi slaves in developing and emerging countries. So some rules of the game are certainly necessary for an optimal output of any economy.

I agree with you somewhat about the outsourcing to emerging countries. My opinion is that mass outsourcing happened here in the US because the companies found it easier to increase margins that way instead of trying to increase productivity with the US workforce. And part of that problem may stem from our education system in the US which has drifted into mediocrity.

@gdpbull: I have the strong feeling that all developed economies tend outsource costs. We in Germany are in particular good in this respect. So I disagree with your notion there is a specific 'guilt' in this respect in the economic model of the US...

The US maintains a vast social welfare system, in part to make amends for past racial injustice. The UK and France both send scarce funds to former colonies for similar reasons.

Why is it that Germany, fresh from the concentration camps and battlefields of WW II, can find nothing to support the nations it ravaged?

Given its lamentable past, why is Germany not at the forefront of resisting the introduction of WMD into the Middle East?

Germany has been extraordinarily fortunate in its enemies. The US and NATO have shielded Germany for seventy years so that it could regain its strength. This is not an occupation: Germany could ask for and receive the withdrawal of NATO tomorrow. So what is Germany doing to justify this effort?

Before you say 'you did it for your own benefit' consider that larger issues are at play. Belief in Western ideals, firmly rooted in Germany but severely tried by WW II, were the basis for Allied choices regarding Germany.

The containment of the USSR was crucial, but the notion that Europe's largest and one of its most advanced nations might succumb to the power of a Central Asian depotism was too much to swallow for the nation of Gutenburg.

So I repeat the question: What is Germany doing to justify the cost and pain of the West in protecting it all those years? When Germany assume its rightful and necessary role as a strong voice- and arm- protecting Western ideals?

If Germany spoke with a firmness on Iran and Syria that it now clings to its super-mark and unduly swollen export market, instead of complaisantly sitting on the ruins of southern Europe and smooching with Russia, peace in the Middle East might not be so remote and Europe might be in crisis.

Like any organism, the West needs all its members functioning in concert to survive and thrive. This doesn't mean acquiescence to any single thought, but rather unity in the face of an adversary. The ambivalence of Germany to its own cultural and social context is disturbing.

The US is what history has made it, just as is Germany. The US embraces its role of aegis of the West imperfectly, just as Germany uncertainly handles its role of indifference. That the US sacrifices itself for its ideals does not exonerate it from the crimes that it may commit, just as Germany's flaccid response to the world's despots has no justification.

If your defense against the charge that Germany is content to do nothing to assist efforts toward peace in the Middle East and economic disintegration in the EZ, is that the US is not perfect, you are in error. For if Germany continues to ignore the crises around it, what will become of the good that Germany could advance on behalf of humanity in the form of economic and political pressure on despots? Humanity that has been generously poured out to Germany, a humanity that represents all the efforts of decent humans for two thousand years. Will Germany now simply sneer and turn its back?

Your charges against the US are indiscriminate, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. They have all been answered with excruciating thoroughness, dismissiveness or contrition as the case requires. They are in the world media day in and day out. They are a product of trying to do the right thing. That you are using them a smokescreen for the malaise of German morality is unacceptable in a world of crying need.

So could you just speak to the question of German impotence in the face of the challenges of the despotisms of our day?

>What is Germany doing to justify the cost and pain of the West in protecting it all those years? <
Probably you missed to mention that Germany was partly paying the Allies, protecting West Germany and Europe until 1989 see here http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besatzungskosten
beside other costs (and benefits) our state and communities had with the Allies being stationed in post-war Germany.
Also we still pay pensions (even arguable not enough) et cetera to former victims of the Nazism elsewhere in the world
and finally as any other nation development aid, and other contributions to international organisation, including the EU.
For details you can check here http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Web/EN/Home/home.html
So the medal has two sides as any medal, and your complaints point to some missing information.

The compensation Germany pays its victims should be commensurate with the injury suffered. Perhaps you are able to tell us how closely Germany has matched the damage to the cities and nations wiped out. Token gifts- all that has yet been paid- are fine but inadequate. Bowing to a French flag three times is inadequate. Selling submarines to Israel is inadequate. Only long painful payments approaching justice and actions that significantly buttress the structure it sought to topple will obliterate the German enormities that mere time cannot.

The six million Jews that were liquidated can only be compensated by supporting Israel to the hilt. So why exactly is Germany not at the forefront of giving giving Israel tens of billions every year for the next century, as well as unlimited defense means forever?

Why is not Germany in the forefront of those that seek to quell the Iranian thrust for nuclear weapons? Why is Germany indifferently watching terror scorch the Middle East, igniting evermore enemies against Israel?

It was the precipitation of the Jewish state in the Middle East that began this cycle of terror. Germany is responsible.

Equally urgent is Germany's decision to diplomatically support the despot Putin on issues regarding his dependent tyrants in Libya and Syria. This ongoing affront to NATO only highlights Germany's lack of moral legitimacy. Where is Germany's sense of unity with the West? If it feels alienated, to what group or force should we look for its source? Only Germany itself alone.

Make no mistake. My denunciation of Germany is cold not hot. And yet, notwithstanding the lip service paid, I am thoroughly in awe of the ability of that nation to ignore its own past through lack of financial restitution. Like the girl that fornicates with a new beau every night and then pretends it didn't happen, Germany has danced with the devil and ignored the price.

The German debt forgiveness of 1953 was only one in a long list of Western indulgences to Germany. The price of every Allied serviceman killed during the Cold War must remain on Germany's ledger until it makes a thorough payment. The price will never, never ever be forgotten. The idea that Germany is paying for the exertions of NATO are pathetic.

When will Germany rouse itself from its moral lethargy and recognize that the current world order was not created to award Germany the lottery grand prize as it now imagines it enjoys?

Germany has never represented a coherent mature nation and does not do so today. Only when Germany undertakes the burdens of supporting the West at large will the German people be able to say they have arrived at the mature status of nationhood.

Germany cannot pretend to be small and insignificant. Self-effacement is not a virtue when it is only used as a means of evading responsibility. Saying you are responsible is the first step. Paying comes next. That is the hard part. Past due. Pay now.

All other statements you are making - I'm a post war German - are not well based.

So why should post war Germans should pay for ever for the crimes our ancesters committed? Explain?

Or are yu still paying bills for grandfather?

Also it would be nice if you were to deliver examples derived from history, where payments from one country to anther country (exempt from a country to affected individuals) are made by a post war generation, who has no guilt simply as a matter of lacking causality.

UK sends billions to India each year for past depredations. This is the sincere expression of a circumspect UK.

US spends billions each year to descendants of enslaved Africans. And yet my family- or most families- never owned slaves.

US rebuilt Iraq after the invasion. Yet no court ordered it.

France invites previously colonized nations to become French.
This is the expression of a great nation seeking to harmonize its past with the present.

These are examples of simple justice, not imposed by outside forces. France, US and UK recognize moral responsibility for historical injustices.

Germany appears not to recognize any justice outside of what its heavy boot imposes or its cringing pleas can wheedle.

Germany simply has not risen to the level of a mature nation, capable of recognizing moral obligation, not just legalistic wrangling. Indefensible.

German responsibility for the current condition of the world is irrefutable. It precipitated the creation of the state of Israel, which has caused much of the last sixty years of history in that region. Yet Germany makes only token offerings. Insupportable.

Germany has benefited enormously from the inability of EZ members to inflate their debt away, causing great suffering in those nations. Yet Germany acts as if it has won the sweepstakes. Unacceptable.

Germany does not even offer diplomatic support to the structure to which it belongs and has protected it for seventy years: NATO. Germany supported Russia over NATO in UN Res. 1973 regarding Libya, and sided with Russia at the recent G-20 meeting regarding Syria. Germany does not pay the 2% of GDP it committed to support its military.

Are we supposed to accept the jolly beer revellers and hard working car builders and prudent financiers of Germany at what they say? Or should we look at their actions?

For Germany to become a mature whole nation it must come to terms with its past. Watching old films a documentaries is only a first step. Only ameliorating that past in a significant persistent way will be sufficient.

"If your defense against the charge that Germany is content to do nothing to assist efforts toward peace in the Middle East and economic disintegration in the EZ, is that the US is not perfect, you are in error. "

As long as we can only choose between two evils I do not see a point to get involved in Syria. The US government failed to provide evidence that a regime change really improves the situation.

The general problem of ME is that many decisions are outsourced to Israel by the USA, there is not (longer) an impartial broker and no clear ME policy. Nobody is really interested to spend resources when he is not able to make useful decisions, sorry.

The larger issue is Germany's clear unwillingness to come to grips with any of the challenges the West faces. As long as Germany is under the pall of a media that seeks to bias its citizens, we will continue to hear falsehoods such as, '...many decisions are outsourced to Israel by the USA...'.

You state there is no impartial broker in the ME. What of the EU? What of Germany? Has Germany ceased to have a foreign policy? The answer is that Germany's foreign policy is largely that put forward by Russia. This is no secret.

The policy of drift that Germany has adopted ('Nobody is really interested to spend resources when he is not able to make useful decisions.') is nothing more than an repuduation of responsibility that every nation shares according to its ability to avert disasters.

The US comes in for great criticism for trying. Will Germany's history for this time read simply, 'we didn't care enough to try'?

I make a very broad indictment of Germany. Why you lack the candor to speak to the larger issue is a mystery to me.

"The US government failed to provide evidence that a regime change really improves the situation."

Oh dear here comes the lies again.

The US did not ask for a regime change, the only time Obama got involved in Syria was after the chemical attacks and wanted to take out Assad's chemical weapons stockpile.

The people who have been wanting regime change are your fellow EU members, France and Britian who have been arming the rebels long before the US which only sent a small quantity of weapons to the rebels recently and only after the chemical attack.

Get your facts straight, this is not Deutscheland where the US blamed automatically for every thing bad that happens in the world and for the actions of Europeans.

France and Britain have sent much larger quantities of arms to the rebels and for much longer than the US but it is the US now that stands accussed of wanting to topple Assad, what about the Europeans? They are never responsible for their actions are they?

I am glad you are so quick with the wiki. Try some of that magic on telling me why Germany is still an incomplete nation. I await your response eagerly. I hope the collective neurosis to which your nation is suseptible will not cloud your screen.

Viva, sometimes I really have a hard time to understand why a basically intelligent person like you sputters so much pure nonsense here on the net.

Fact is, migrants in the UK sent approx £2.5 billion ($4.0 billion) to India (e.g. in 2011); this is true. However 'aid' handed over by the British state to India is just £280million, according to estimates by the World Bank (BTW, not much more than Germany administers to India without ever exploiting this country). These are indeed 'peanuts', given that the British state enriched itself tremendously during the 200 years of colonial rule.

It has been roughly estimated as 16 trillion dollars in today's value that was looted by the British rulers in that 200 years of exploiting India, apart from other wealth like gold, diamonds and raw materials which shipped by 'shiploads' back to Great Britain. E.g. the famous Kohinoor diamond which was taken from Indian treasures is still today a part of the Royal British Crown Jewels for which the Queen never compensated the Indian people.

The looted money and wealth were then showered into the inventions of the industrial revolution, like 'the spinning Jenny' or the steam engine in the year 1785 etc.

Besides that Germany is the world's second largest global donor of developing aid (after the US), it is, with nearly EUR10 billion per budget period also the largest contributor to the EU's regional development and social funding.

Either you are really so lowbrow to believe in your steady false claims about Germany . . . or you are spreading your lies purposely as part of a wider political agenda.

If you were to honestly digest the provided information, I would also sent you links to more in-depth information.
What is 'incomplete' nation? Never heard a definition of it. Do you think we were more complete if we were to clatter with weapons in any crisis. I do not know the answer but probably you should ask politician in Paris, London, Warsaw, Prag, Kopenhagen, Den Haag, Brussels, Bern, Austria, .. whether they were pleased seeing a better armed Germany participating in any war adventure.
Finally I never heard that a nation (instead of individuals) may suffer from psychological illnesses, such as neurosis. Explain?

Obviously (and regretably) the latter is true for both unmentioned bloggers. They simple stick with their black and white stereotype about other countries, probably because it is so convenient to be lazy.
In fact, both of them errorneously assume that re-arming Germany to larger degree would serve our interests (which they were take as the interest of the 'West', without explaing what the 'West' is?)
For example, when looking from China westward, then central Asia is the west, looking from Europe to the west then there is first a vast ocean and then some extreme (and few) conservatives in a large, and diverse country which we tend to admire for its great culture, science, hospitality, et cetera, but for them the 'West' is making war to peoples which are suffering under a dictatorship.

emma: "After all the state of Israel exists today because of the German holocaust of Jews."

Wrong! The 'homeland for Jews' in Arab Palestine entered the planning stage in 1917, 25 years before the holocaust. This was right after the "Balfour Declaration", which had misled the politically organized Jewry in Germany and Austria to side openly with Germany's and Austria's wartime enemies.

Up to that point the German public had accepted the foreigners (mostly decedents of immigrants from Poland and Russia) with a remarkable degree of tolerance, and more or less allowed them to dominate certain sectors of German society, e.g. the media.

Until the Balfour Declaration there was no legal constraints; violent attacks against Jews were unheard of in Germany. But 'after Balfour' the Germans would come to regret such liberal policies.

Here Angela's Europe seen from Italy.As anyone knows,the Bel Paese is a country of profligators,spending the fruit of corruption and fiscal evasion by suntanning on the beaches while the germans are "working for them".But Italy(second industrial power in Europe) is also something else.Led by the traitor and marionet Monti,a squalid servant of The Frau,Italy experienced a miracle that could overshadow that of the Gospel of "the multiplication of Bread and Fishes".Taxes grew wildly,and at the same time the public debt grew,too.How happened?Monti,on order of The Frau,picked up from our public deby 29 billions of Euros,added 23 billions coming from an odious tax named IMU that jeopardized not for case the sense of quiet and self security of the italians triggering a dramatic fall of sales,and the total of 52 went to the "stability facilities",say the GErman banks,mainly(and some bread and fish to the French and Spanish,in the name of solidarity).Just add the competition of the devalued mark called Euro,and you know one not small reason for the reelctiuon of The Frau.The competitors forced to lose any race by carring the burden of devaluation,summed up to the "spread" that grows with the public debt,that grows we have seen why.If I was a german elector,i would vote for Merkel,obviously-

According to one previous commenter, "a German policy analyst, U.S." wrote about Merkel: "... she is everything to everybody: a bit conservative, a bit liberal, a bit green, and a bit social-democratic. The secret is that she is not governing and not leading. Germany is governing itself."

Of course, a chancellor in postwar Germany can neither "govern" nor "lead" in the sense the presidential systems in France or the USA allow this, where the executive branch is led by one person with enormous powers, who serves as both head of state and head of government. Whereas Germany is a federal parliamentary republic by constitution, where public will and federal legislative power is vested in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat (the representative body of the Laender, Germany's regional states).

It seems somehow characteristic for many "political analysts" these days not to know the constitutional basics of the countries they write about. As a matter of fact, this policy analyst mentioned above describes an almost 'ideal' administering democratic consensus system . . . quite the opposite of some authoritarian leadership systems we allegedly all hold in contempt so much.

This is also why the German postwar constitution determines that the Federal Chancellor 'administers public will', not "lead the nation", especially not in a direction the majority doesn't want.

This public will was expressed Sep 22. The results clearly show that a majority doesn't want more powers handed to EU bodies resp. 'joint liabilities' on Euro level. If Ms Merkel would dare to ignore this public will she'd be stopped in her tracks in no time at all by the federal political system.

On the other hand, a majority seems to be wanting more "social justice" at home; this means for any future administration to act more in Germany's own interest.

This is probably why the nation voted for a "grand coalition" and, at the same time, gave euro-skeptical parties like CSU and AfD lots of support.

The FDP, once the guardian of national (and individual) freedom, was too eager handing the nation's freedom to Frankfurt and Brussels. That way the Liberal party steered itself 'obsolete' in the eyes of many of its former voters (lawyers, doctors, freelance professionals). This normally 'loyal' FDP-clientele changed massively sides to AfD, as post-election polls now show.

Resumee: The FDP missed its own euro-critical school of thought - its natural habitat and 'onetime' opportunity. . . . And got its comeuppance!

Therefore, whoever will put the new administration together in Germany, to me it seems the Germans have had enough from "fuehrers" to all eternity; they prefer level-headed, mathematical-minded administrators; and that's a good thing, too.

Well, all the "Great" Chancellors that are remembered were also leaders, who took up challenges and pushed them through with all the power they had. Adenauer with his task of connecting Germany to the West and reconcilliation with France, Willy Brandt for opening West Germany up to the East, maybe even Schmidt, for taking hard decisions against German terrorism in the form of the RAF. And Kohl for taking up the historical chance and opportunity of reuniting Germany and embedding it in a peaceful, open Europe. That was leadership, not just "letting Germany govern itself". And if Merkel with her style of partitioning problems and methodically solving them succeeds to save the Euro another 4 years and in this time the crisis the Southern Europe wears down, the reforms take shape and the effect is felt she as well may be remembered as a great Chancellor. In Germany it took some years as well, millions of jobless, mass demonstrations, angry unions, and cost Gerhard Schröders head but at some point reforms do work.

Adenauer, more or less, followed the directives of the Western powers. His "connecting Germany to the West" (meaning, joining NATO and the coal and steel union) wasn't necessarily in the interest of a "united Germany". Adenauer missed the chance Austria took in 1955, when the Austrian government accepted a farsighted agree­ment with Khrushchev: In May 1955, on Soviet and Austrian insistence, a state treaty was signed in Vienna that the troops of the four occupying powers, which were - similar to the situation in Germany - controlling the country since the end of the war, were to be withdrawn in return for an Austria's commitment to neu­trality. This was the reason Austria was fortunate to become united again and remain neutral throughout the Cold War.

3 years earlier, in 1952, a similar offer was made by the Soviet Union to the Adenauer government. The so-called 'Stalin Note', also known as the March Note, was a document delivered on March 10, 1952, from the Soviet occupation zone to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) in Germany. The Soviet leadership put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for "the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly" and free activity of democratic parties and organizations (Wikipedia).

Adenauer didn't even allow that his countrymen were publicly asked if they're for it or against it, instead he cringingly followed the orders of the Western powers, which was an ungracious 'NO'.

The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), one of the EU-forerunners, was proposed by the French government on 9 May 1950 in order to tame and control a future industrial power of France's main economic rival: Germany.

French foreign minister Robert Schuman declared his government's aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible". The Treaty, so the French calculus, would create a common market for coal and steel among its member states which then would serve to neutralize Germany's industrial preeminence, particularly of the Ruhr. Also at this Adenauer was rather "a compliant pupil" than "a leader".

Willy Brand was more of a "leader" by helping to emancipate Germany from the Allied dictates, which has been "the order of political business" for all German governments till then.

As a former Wehrmacht officer Helmut Schmidt was by nature a crisis-solver and "commander", these were his trained strengths, but Schmidt wasn't a "leader" in a political sense.

Kohl, admittedly, grasped an opportunity by the forelock, but also he rather followed the historical events than initiating them.

The only "leader" who lead the nation into a new direction, without being pushed by events or public will, was Gerhard Schroeder. But he paid dearly for his political courage.

Germany was tied by treaty with the US first, and was a NATO member already in 1951

The ECSC was already found after WW1, the league of Nations was ruling it through BIS in Basel, it was frozen during WW2, but the bankers remained the same, therefore french and german shareholders, their business restarted after WW2

so don't try to insert your frustration against France again, we know that we aren't your cup of tea, idem the Jews, you're still schewing the same old nazy grievances again and again

Declassified documents from the former Soviet archives, first published in German translation in 2007 in the book Stalins großer Bluff, allow scholars to reconstruct in a detailed way the preparation of the note and to examine whether Iosif Stalin was really ready to sacrifice the GDR and to reunify Germany. This article shows that the Stalin Note was merely a ploy to facilitate the incorporation of the German Democratic Republic into the Eastern bloc and to blame the Western occupying powers for the division of Germany.

Schuman attended Catholic secondary schools in Luxembourg and the Catholic University in Bonn (where he also met the young Konrad Adenauer). The two men's adhesive binding was their common religion, but this religious interconnection didn't make Adenauer "a great German political leader". During his tenures Adenauer didn't serve the common interests of all his fellow countrymen.

Besides that Adenauer was also the 'performing agent' of the allied powers, it's also a fact that he, who came from Catholic Rhineland, was personally not at all interested in a reunification with the Protestant East. As a member of the Catholic 'Zentrum' party Adenauer's career took flight already during WW I - and in 1917 he became Mayor of (then Catholic) Cologne.

During the Weimar Republic Adenauer lobbied politically for an independent Catholic Rhineland inside a conglomerate of loosely connected German regions and states. This alone speaks against him as a "great German leader".

After WW II Adenauer had also a very political (non-religious) motive for being against unification: Many of the traditional opponents of Adenauer's Weimar secession policies were in the GDR. A unification with the East zone would have made a unified Germany more Protestant and/or secular and more Social Democratic than the more Catholic FRG of the three Western zones was.

One needs to know that Adenauer's CDU was initially one of the successor movements of the prewar Catholic Centre Party which was at its very outset formed in an attempt to unsettle the non-Catholic "Prussian" government in Berlin against it had launched a battle to reestablish the power of the Catholic Church in Germany, which had been dwarfed by Prussia's political secularism.

Outlawed under the Nazis, the Zentrum party was initially reestablished after World War II, but could not rise to its former importance again. Adenauer, as many of the former Zentrum members, helped to establish the new Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

However, also the Zentrum party's remnants were represented in the German parliament for quite a while. In the state of North Rhine-Westphalia it existed as a marginal party until 1957.

There are divided opinions on that matter. A recently opened (formerly classified) memorandum of the US Dep. of State suggests that the Soviets were more interested in 'neutralizing' Germany's industrial powerhouse than they were keen on incorporating less-important GDR into their Eastern bloc. http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB94/tb33.pdf.

Above all the Soviets didn't want NATO tanks and missiles in their front yard. Stalin and later Khrushchev would have paid almost any price to avoid that. This fear even created in 1962 Khrushchev's counter threat, the so-called Cuban missile crisis . . . and it is shared today by Putin's Russia.

By not fleeing Nazi Germany, Adenauer demonstrated moral courage. You are far too dismissive of his 'cringing' attempts to keep Germany in the Western fold, which were based on conviction of Germany's proper place in the world and a realistic appraisal of current situation.

As you demonstrate by giving the 'Stalin note' undue dignity, you follow a somewhat convoluted logic, since Germany in 1952 could not reasonably have maintained its independence, prone as it would have been to communist penetration and overthrow.

The best proof of Adenauer's wisdom in clinging to market-based Western Christian ideals is the current state of Germany, which a precipitate withdrawal of NATO would have shattered. After all, when NATO makes a promise, it keeps it. USSR's word depended on the promise of a genocidal maniac and consequently could not have been trusted under any circumstances whatsoever.

Adenauer's deep seated religious and political beliefs, the context of Adenauer's choices, the barbarity and destructiveness of the war and the inability of Germany to effectively resist its occupiers, mark him as perhaps the ideal man for the job at the time.

" . . . since Germany in 1952 could not reasonably have maintained its independence, prone as it would have been to communist penetration and overthrow".

Why should "communist penetration and overthrow" have been the case in an united Germany? What kept 'communism' out politically of the western occupied zones was not the allied presence but the so-called 'economic miracle'!

The two main factors for that "miracle" were currency reform and the elimination of price controls, both of which were introduced over a period of weeks in 1948 by Ludwig Erhard against the resistance of the western Allied Control Council. Further factors were Erhard's "economic framework", the so-called Ordoliberalism and, later in 1948 and in 1949, the reduction of marginal tax rates.

If we liked it or not; fact is that the Soviet-Russians very much stood all along by their once given promises. The Russian grab of the Eastern half of Europe wasn't a breach of promises, but rather the literal fulfillment of what was agreed upon in Yalta February 4–11, 1945, between Russia and the USA (against some resistance of Winston Churchill).

And I don't underestimate the geopolitical differences between Russia and the West at the time, but the so-called Cold War was fundamentally about ideology not geopolitics.

E.g., by contrast, First World War didn't trigger anything like the Cold War as long as the ideological differences between Czarist Russia and the German Empire were insignificant. Russia and most of the other great European powers then belonged to the same 'privileged club', ruled by a like-minded European aristocracy. The same is true for the British-Russian Great Game for dominance of the nineteenth century. It never led to ideological differences.

It was rather the Russian Revolution, a post-product of First World War, that became both a symptom of, and a contribution to, the decay of that Western episteme which had dominated Europe for centuries.

It was, thus, the Communist revolution that put an end to the ideological unity of Europe's intermarried cosmopolitan elites (of which the aristocracy was only one factor).

In an attempt to create a non-Western alternative to the Western way of life, the Russian form of Communism quickly became 'international', picking up followers around the globe especially in societies where the masses felt exploited by the existing order may this have been by aristocrats or foreign colonial powers. In this ideological sense the Cold War began as early as 1917.

Postwar Germans maybe felt suppressed for a while by the occupying powers, but certainly not by a "ruling class". There was therefore absolutely no reason why a united neutral Germany should have politically and economically acted differently from let's say neutral Finland or Austria.

LV: 'What kept 'communism' out politically of the western occupied zones was not the allied presence but the so-called 'economic miracle'!'

VZ: An ridiculous statement when considered in light of the militant communism that attempted to subvert nations as different as Italy and China in the years after the war.

LV: 'The two main factors for that "miracle" were currency reform and the elimination of price controls...'

VZ: The prerequisite of economic growth is political stability. The notion that USSR would stand by while a prostrate Germany, deeply feared by the USSR, rebuilt is like asking us to believe USSR would leave Hungary, CZ or Poland if its peoples agitated enough. Didn't happen there, did it? So why think Germany wouldn't have succumbed in weeks if not days upon the withdrawal of the Allies?

LV: 'If we liked it or not; fact is that the Soviet-Russians very much stood all along by their once given promises. The Russian grab of the Eastern half of Europe wasn't a breach of promises, but rather the literal fulfillment of what was agreed upon in Yalta February 4–11, 1945, between Russia and the USA (against some resistance of Winston Churchill).'

VZ: Comparing the rape of Eastern Europe to an 'agreed upon' contract is a little bit much. Let's just say the wolf promised to eat the shepherd and did so. Given such a precedent, what hope would a post-war prostrate Germany have had? Stalin's assurances? Try harder.

LV: 'And I don't underestimate the geopolitical differences between Russia and the West at the time, but the so-called Cold War was fundamentally about ideology not geopolitics.'

VZ: Again, without chastising, I must remind you that this is not your strong suit. If Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Angola, Ethopia, Cuba and Nicaragua to name only a few locations of USSR inspired and backed insurgencies was not about geopolitics, what could be?

LV: 'E.g., by contrast, First World War didn't trigger anything like the Cold War as long as the ideological differences between Czarist Russia and the German Empire were insignificant. Russia and most of the other great European powers then belonged to the same 'privileged club', ruled by a like-minded European aristocracy. The same is true for the British-Russian Great Game for dominance of the nineteenth century. It never led to ideological differences.'

VZ: I recognize you effort to lessen the differences between Germany and Russia for your vision of a contemporary German-Russian bund. Maybe it will eventuate. Does not speak to your central thesis regarding post-WW II Germany-USSR however.

LV: 'It was rather the Russian Revolution, a post-product of First World War, that became both a symptom of, and a contribution to, the decay of that Western episteme which had dominated Europe for centuries.'

VZ: Factually incorrect. The Russian Revolution was not a 'post-product' of WW I but rather an integral and crucial factor in that war. Since the USSR has vanished and the 'Western episteme' continues to hobble along, we can debate the extent to which the Russian Revolution was a contributory factor to the Western decay.

LV: 'It was, thus, the Communist revolution that put an end to the ideological unity of Europe's intermarried cosmopolitan elites (of which the aristocracy was only one factor).'

VZ: This is so. But it did not split the peoples, who still clung to their ancient faith. Even in this so-called post-Christian Europe, the values and ideals of Christianity are ubiquitous. And the Graeco-Roman heritage is inexpungible.

LV: 'In an attempt to create a non-Western alternative to the Western way of life, the Russian form of Communism quickly became 'international', picking up followers around the globe especially in societies where the masses felt exploited by the existing order may this have been by aristocrats or foreign colonial powers. In this ideological sense the Cold War began as early as 1917.'

VZ: Communism arose from the works of Marx and others. How then is Communism a 'non-Western alternative. The Soviets cynically used every means to subvert nations under the specious claims of universal brotherhood, parachuting Kim il-Chung into Korea the same way the Germans boxcarred Lenin into Russia. The list is long and unattractive. You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.

LV: 'Postwar Germans maybe felt suppressed for a while by the occupying powers, but certainly not by a "ruling class". There was therefore absolutely no reason why a united neutral Germany should have politically and economically acted differently from let's say neutral Finland or Austria.'

VZ: Poor examples: Finland had territory seized and Austria was strategically inconvenient for the Soviet marshals' European plans, which always centered on- guess who- Germany. Your case was never defensible and clearly a loser. But you bravely held up a number of imposters, straw men and red herring. I am giving you a C- for audacity.

WILL GERMANY'S APPROACH TO THE EURO RESCUE CHANGE UNDER A GRAND COALITION?

In my opinion, there won't be much change on this front - for a couple of reasons:

First of all, the image of Merkel as the "Iron Lady of the Euro Rescue" is a charicature - one should not overlook that under her leadership, Germany has agreed to - albeit limited - debt mutualization (to the order ot a couple of hundred of billion euros), when prior to the default of Greece + Portugal, there was none of it; Merkel has certainly moved cautiously, but she has moved and will keep moving. She is not an ideologue, but an uber-pragmatist.

Second, with the exception of The Left, there is large consensus on European and foreign policy among German political parties; the SPD voted with the outgoing government on all eurorescue measures and also approved the strings attached to the aid packages for Greece + Portugal et al.

And third, the SPD left the last Merkel-led Grand Coalition (2005-9) badly damaged, losing a third of their voters, because Merkel had outfoxed them by having them take responsibility for a series of painful cuts (such as raising the retirement age to 67), while staying above the fray herself at all occassions; the SPD will see to it to avoid a repetition, and since assuming other countries' debt isn't exactly popular, they will make tangible improvements for their core electorate their main goal, and not debt relief for Greece + Portugal et al.

Bottom line: On Europe, I expect a change in tone, but not in substance should a Grand Coalition be formed.

Hi Josh, exactly because SPD would seek ways to differentiate somehow from CDU in the coalition government, they may want to take over the intuitive in European issues (Angela Merkel is criticized for not having a European vision). In particular by closer cooperation with French whose president is from the same political camp and look for some solutions together.

Remember that German finance minister has admitted to be making huge savings on falling bond interest rates that is achieved at the expense of rising interest rates in peripheral EU members therefore some compensations may be justifiable even in the eyes of the public who still mistakenly considers Germany to have negative balance because they mistakenly consider the rescue loans as gifts.

Now why would an "American" like good ole Josh be so interested about the ins and outs of German politics.
What you should be concerned about is the American tax payer monies that were used for the IMF's never ending bailouts for the eurozone to save the world once again from the stupidity of European leaders.
Never forget that the real victims of euro crisis are the Americans, Canadians, Australians, Japanese,Brazilians & Indians who have contributed billions to IMF eurozone bailouts even though they had nothing to do with the creation of this deeply flawed currency.
Spare any thoughts for them, Josh the "American" ?

Kidney, don't forget to mention that it was Goldman Sucks and other US predator banks that helped Greece and others hiding their debt before they had set the financial world on fire with their ABS, CDS, etc toxic waste...

yes, the SPD will extract a very high price from Mrs. Merkel if it forms a government with her, and in that regard, I completely agree that her victory was a "phyrric" one.

She effectively campaigned against her own coalition partner, who then fell short of the 5 % threshold by .2 percentage points, and now will have to make room for a much less comfortable partner who commands 26 % of the vote and the majority of seats in the upper house of parliament.

But I don't think that the SPD will demand changes in the approach to the euro rescue; the two parties' differences on that issue are largely symbolic. Instead, the SPD will demand hefty concessions on their bread-and-butter issues, such as a minimum wage, higher taxes for the rich, and more spending on (domestic) infrastructure and education. I expect the SPD to more or less dictate these chapters of the new coalition agreement to Merkel's CDU/CSU.

Merkel won't care - she goes with the flow; but the more her party moves left, the more votes it will lose to the AfD party in future elections.

pulpo: 'Kidney, don't forget to mention that it was Goldman Sucks and other US predator banks that helped Greece and others hiding their debt before they had set the financial world on fire with their ABS, CDS, etc toxic waste...'

And who was GS legate to Greece? Why Mario Draghi, of course, who was rewarded for this bit of legerdemain with the post of head of the ECB, the only supranational entity established by the EU so far to actually attain a level of sovereignty over the member nations.

As Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy and Cyprus slide down the shitter, perhaps you will reflect on the degree to which this debacle belongs to European bankers every bit as much as the US.

Who started it? In five years no one will remember and if we are still alive the burning issue of the day will be who will eat and who will starve, as we look up at those towers on the hills, built and fortified by the wealth stolen from us by the bankers of many nations, not just the one you love so much to hate. Wake up.

Nobody here can explain why Germany should change a single thing when everything is exactly going according to plan.

Had the crisis in Southern Europe had any effect on the German economy ? NO ! Despite 4 years of constant blabbering by all sorts of People and including the economist, Germany is doing great, the breakdown of the Southern European market has been compensated without any problem at all by simply shifting away to other markets.

On Top, the crisis in Southern Europe keeps the Euro down and drives the capital to Germany, thus fuelling 1) exports
2) keep the borrowing costs for the German state low, beeing great for deficit reduction and the target of producing a real budget surplus next year
3) strenghens Germany's political power and enables Germany to enforce its policy beyond economic terms

The downside of German savers recieving less interest may even drive some more into the stockmarket, which is a field in which Germans are underrespresented in any measurement.

Finally, after years and years of reform, the first signs of improovement may start to show in Southern Europe, but until then it is in the best self-interest of Merkel and Germany to keep everything as it is. If Southern Europe want's stimulus, just tell them to go to the financial markets and borrow there for terribly high interest rates or do as told by Germany in exchange for loans.

Is this position selfish ? Not more than asking for even more money from Germany after lying in the face of Germans for over a decade if you ask me.

Even after the German government under Schroder used its clout within the eurozone to make the stability pact toothless in order to avoid paying fines when German violated the rules on deficits, thus paving the way for other countries like Greece, Portugal etc to get away with sky high deficits without any fear of fines.
Looks like selfish German policies had a hand in the euro crisis too.

Even after the fact German banks were bailed out by the ECB with the monies of all European taxpayers to the EU?

How come German banks did not have to pay for their greed and incompetence while Greece had to pay with painful austerity for its misdeeds?

Unfortunately you will learn one day just as your grandparents did that no country gets away with the consequences of its behavior. It may take years or decades but eventually it will happen.

the victory was'nt half as big as clebrated now in the media. with only 30% of the votes from the eligible voters it rather is a desaster for the parties in general. the good thing about this result will be that the good old mutti must now look for a partner or try to reign with a minority government. the secon option will be the most interesting one because mrs. merkel must finally explain her politics (which she can't I am convinced) at the end this victory is the beginning of the end for a woman who is the most overestimated politician these days. a chancellor who can only be succcessful in a dull society like the German one.

So maybe I have a language problem, I don't know that the contrary of dull is extravagant or flamboyant. For sure I know that a country where 16 year olds are thinking about their pension and if it will be sufficient, and where all big parties avoided to talk about serious problems like Syria or the NSA because such topics are way to severe for the electorate and no one (sure some did but a small minority) complaint, is a dull society! You are welcome to live here any time you want, for me as a German born but native French it is sometimes very tough not to just scream out loud. I would just whish this country come alive in a very positive way and not only every 4 years for a football tournament.

Yes, the dullness over here is palpable - just watch the TV. Dullest television shows one could imagine. Or the news - just compare them to BBC's newsnight for example (for crying out loud). Germans really got brainwashed during the heyday of the finance crisis when one "expert" after the other talked in favour of austerity (in the PIIGS state only of course - we were doing just swell, they said). Then there was the Grand coalition - boring as hell. The time after wasn't any better with SPD's Steinbrück giving Merkel a blank check w.r.t. European policy and basically agreeing to her mantra of "Alternativlosigkeit" thereby choking off any controversy. Next Merkel is dull by definition, never giving one straight answer or colorful opinion (in fairness: she had bad experience with this, losing to Schröder in one election).

Yes! Dull, dull, dull! I think Germans like it dull, sweeping their sidewalk on time every Saturday for example.

But dullness can be nice too! I like to be sitting in a Biergarten wasting time, filling up the beer-mug now and then. Or having a grill-party get-together with family. Maybe Germany is living in some sort of Biedermeier right now. But this is a sign for times to change.

Even though the main contenders followed a campaign path that will go down in history as one of the most boring of all times, the German federal elections of Sept. 22 are, together with its dramatic results, truly exciting for the rest of the world for what the immense global coverage bears witness to.

Once she sorts out her domestic alliances Frau Merkel will need to turn her attention to Europe. Now the French are a busted flush economically Germany need a new special realtionship. What Europe needs is a counterweight to German industrial prowess, and without this there will be no peace, no Eurozone and no EU. Casting around the Eurozone for alternative ballast is an unprofitable exercise? Whilst it will be deeply unfashionable to say this, the obvious and only answer is to balance German industrial dominance with the UK’s equally mighty service industries; with these two towers of strength a mighty temple could be constructed. And here is the opportunity for David Cameron, if he is genuine about his desire to renegotiate our contract with Europe (Germany), he may find that he is pushing on an open door.http://getwd50.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-grown-up-germany-needs-new-partn...

Merkel is the most experimented as a leader bred for a EU burocratic Empire, her past in Eastern Germany was all about to adopt a low profile and to make useful alliances, the other EU leaders are Choir children beneath her

Now when the big EU Toy, Chimera, will be broken, some new personnalities will rise

"Merkel's secret is that she is lucky - that German business sells cars, machines and alike. Fighting for "a freer world"? Can't see that. She's not pushing for East European's rights against a resurgent Russia. No diplomatic initiative on Syria. Nothing on the Arab Spring. A relationship with China entirely dictated by big business. On Europe, as little as possible. The only goal: put as little as possible of German money at risk. Her victory in Germany? Only because she is everything to everybody: a bit conservative, a bit liberal, a bit green, and a bit social-democratic. The secret is that she is not governing and not leading. Germany is governing itself.

She may become a historic figure as Adenauer and Kohl if she finally translates her good instincts in policy and makes choices that will necessarily controversial. She has to re-invent the EU, only she can. But will she? I doubt it. Because muddling through went just too well for her."

They are more and more often talking about 41% rather then 42% of the votes for CDU/CSU. If Angela Merkel doesn't have an absolute majority of seats in Parliament that would mean that the other coalition (SPD, the Greens and the communists) does. This other possibility was mentioned by TE last Friday ("A Week Ahead") and it does sound like an interesting option (let this other coalition be some sort of a litmus paper for the former GDR communist party "die linke" on how they are ready to take responsibility for the largest EU economy, whereas Angela Merkel could rest a bit, recharge batteries and get ready to intervene the moment things started to go wrong in German economy).

@VENZE.As quantum physicist,Angela should know that an observation on a unknown quantum object could give you some surprise,not always positive.It is what she will learn when,once applied her methods to the economy of Europe,she will realize that she destroyed the quantum object,and blew up the laboratory.The election of Merkel,and the room that will be given to the crazies leading the Bundesbank, is nothing less than a catastrophe.It will trigger a social tragedy without precedings in the continent.Some "quantum mechanics" foresees 150 millions of poors,in Europe,in the year 2025.This won't happen without consequnces that cannot be foreseen exactly,but will be anyway tragic and very dangerous for peace.

Quantum Mechanics says that if an object has few states - like in the Schroedinger's cat gedakenexperiment where the poor cat is on a mixture of dead and alive states inside a box - a measurement will destroy such mixture.
An election is certainly a measurement, nevertheless democratic countries and democratic unions of countries are usually not destroyed due to this measurement, as this measurement is routinely done through elections, and following well defined rules. It is more complex than the cat experiment, as there is a larger diversity of possible mixed states, each state corresponding to an alliance of parties, and the election may just destroy from one alliance and replace it with another.

There are very few leaders in the world who possess strong science backgrounds. As a quantum physicist, Merkel stands out in a unique way among world leaders.

She is pragmatic, makes decision based on solid evidence, eschews unnecessary risk-taking. And once she knows she is on the right track, she would commit herself to and pursue the objective relentlessly. Lets see if she can revive EU by 2017. (boontee, btt1943)

And when the dust has settled over Germany, Angie will realize that this will be her hardest term ever. Her 'all tactics but no strategy' approach has built up such a large backlog of unsolved issues that a cataclysm is more likely than anything else.

Those who thought they elected 'stability' will reap chaos, since hands in the pocket never solves anything in the long run.

>Talk to you soon when your electricty bill has quadrupled.>
Emmyfinchly, I do not understand the logic behind the last sentence. How should come this? On the roof of my house I produce electricity for 16 Euro cent/kWh while the power company charges 25 Euro cent/kWh, and the my tenants pay an 1.20.- Euro/sqm/month for all relevant amenities (heating, insurance, taxes...) in my well insolated home , and their total total rent (inlcuding energy) is 8.10.- Euro/sqm/month. So one result of the 'Energiewende' is certainly that on long term our energy bills will go down, and the money will flow locally/reginally rather than being spent to pay for energy bills to politically volatile fossil fuel producers.

As a descendant of one of the East Coast's finest and purest Anglo breeds, I do not indulge in petty games such as cousin emmafinney does, who grew up in a lumberjack hut near Niagara falls without secondary education and raised by Swedish grandfathers, Gypsy "uncles" and Zulu grannies.

If you feel haunted by her, I do understand.. the whole Finchley family does.

I am glad that you found the time again for a discussion, especially since you have been busy lately manipulating ballots in favor of Angie all over Germany :). No don't respond that, of course you did not.

It sounds you like you believe the Energiewende Plan. If the joke has been lost on you: we pay for energy whether it is used or not. And we pay for conventional backups which need to balance the volatilty in the grid caused by renewable energies to be on standby. And meanwhile, did we really reduce CO2 emissions?

yes, it's good for homeowners who invest in solar panels in particular, I'd be happy about it too if I would own a Klausicastle with solarpanels all over.

Fact is the grid is a patchwork that has years of legal battles still ahead. A sane country would have ensured a suitable grid first, developed better storage technologies second and THEN switched the technology, while keeping nuclear power as final backup, just in case the transition gets into troubled waters.

Panic angie is not sane - she retreats from the moratorium for nuclear energy just to be back at it soon after she got the Fukushima scare. Who is still willing to invest in energy generation in Germany now??

Soon she will sit in her command bunker, stare on a battle plans named 'Operation E-Wende' and start to move power poles that do not yet exist and plants that went out of business long ago like in the last five minutes of 'Der Untergang'.

And instead of paying for energy bills to to politically volatile fossile fuel producers, welcome to buying your steel and chemicals from politically volatile producers instead. Cause that's where the industry will be headed.

I don't think that ‘our‘ electricity bills will quadruple soon as this would be too obvious and cost Merkel votes in the next elections.

It is more likely that she will find a find to hide the costs, turning them into long term damage. Higher energy prices for ‘the people‘ will simply be ruled out, good old Honecker style.

Instead she will quietly adopt the opposition's plan of punishing the ‘große Verschwender‘ which translates into letting the whole industry pay skyrocketing prices. That means industrial decline, followed by economical decline, unemployment..

People will pay the price for E-Wende, but probably not via their electricity bill.

Our only hope is that that in 10 years or so an asteroid will hit Australian solar panels. Then, by the law of Fukushima, mass panic will break out and Angie, after consulting an Ethics (!!!) committee, will tell us that E-Wende isn't en vogue anymore. Morally.

We should pray for all Klausicastle owners that by then the highly subsidized toxic waste on their roofs has payed off.

Because judging by Angie's past behavior regarding ‘pacta sunt servanda‘ she might just drop all support for Klausicastles. Just ask RWE or EON.

Emma you’re right I'm not a fan of Ms Merkel policies in many respects, and I'm much more in favor of a possible upcoming black-green government (see below).

Second the idea of the Energiewende has not its rooting in Fukushima but in the climate change, the upcoming scarcity of natural resources (by the way I'm climate scientist), and the so called fourth industrial revolution. So it is much older than the Fukushima accident, and officially it was enacted by our social democratic-green government in 2001, but as student I was already concerned about in the mid 1970th.

Response to your second paragraph: No, I’m not in support of all regulations of the Energiewende plan as it is for the time being, since it has some drawbacks (mainly due some design problems early on not dealt any further when they became apparent with our former CDU-FDP government). However, I strongly believe that in future man-kind will use more and more renewables, and industries&societies which are able to produce energy efficient products will flourish. Please inspect here the world energy forecasts regularly published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), see http://www.iea.org/

In its core the Energiewende is a plan to substitute as much as possible of traditional energy with brain and capital, which both are available in Germany (unlike traditional energies, except coal). So since we do not have this natural resources, a shale gas industry may find it hard to perforate our whole country with all its negative side effects.

Also there is some well-based hope around with the Energiewende due to some good practice examples.

For example based on an energy plan I developed in 2007 for a whole community of 14000 citizens (based on my own private initiative to see whether the dictum of my profession – to drastically reduce CO2 and othe GHG emissions – may actually work in the world I know). So, we started to locally discuss the relevant measures in 2007, and every since then we enjoy a local energy summit once a year, see here http://www.isny.de/servlet/PB/menu/1245913_l1/index.html

Beside many other measures on the table, we (our local energy cooperative) are just building a 5 MW power plant (in addition to the existing 7 MW we have already in operation) for cogeneration of energy (electricity and heat). Here the base load comes from local biogas production (2.4 MW electric energy and 2.6 MW thermal energy), the medium load from burning waste wood (which we still have in plenty since wood is largely used in our industries to built caravans), and the peak load (in winter) from 'Russian’ gas. This measure (which is on out of +10 measures) is also meant to provide control energy to compensate for the volatile 15 MWpeak of solar and wind electricity we locally produce, and to provide heat for the schools, public buildings, our 'old' city, and part of our industries (which are mostly happy about the Energiewende).

Also our local construction industries are training engineers from Irland, Scotland, Canada, UK, France,China, Brazil, ….. how to build and run low energy buildings since now we do already have a more 15 years expertise how to do it best. Accordingly the construction industries flourish, exporting energy efficient technologies (mostly low techs, like windows, solar panels, et cetera and medium tech like designing and engineering) to EU and beyond.

Finally my son (an energy manager) is working with larger German furnace company, which now produces energy management systems for buildings, meant to adapt energy production on the roof (both thermal and PV) with energy consumption, in order to reduce the load on the grid. His company already flourishes to the utmost, mostly due to their exportations into new energy markets (to which not the US, GB, .... and any other every quarter of year reporting economies are not belonging to).

So in order to properly understand all facets the Energiewende, it appears that it is not so relevant to consider what a Mrs Merkel is thinking but how the several hundred of newly founded energy cooperatives beside the traditional ‘Stadtwerke’ (the city utility companies) and the energy related SMEs are performing with and due to Energiewende. In particular, the rules of the game have to be and are changing in a way that many SMEs may economically compete with the big four power companies in Germany (Eon, Vattenfall, RWE and EnBW), which were brought to power by the Energiewirtschaftsgesetz enacted by the NAZI’s in their WWII preparation in 1935. So the struggle is of the type many dwarfs against four goliaths, but at least in my tiny community one goliath (EnBW) is going to loose the battle, (and of course some of the politically ‘volatile’ energy providers of the world as well).

As a side effect of this struggle, the bigger power companies in Germany now prefer to burn coal (which the buy in Columbia and Australia) instead of the more efficient natural gas, mainly since our past German government was not agreeing to an EU plan to increase the price of CO2 emission certificates (i.e. by reducing their number). Accordingly, the ‘changing’ energy production of the big four power company caused Germany’s CO2 emission to increase instead to decrease it. In this respect it is good sign that the ‘liberal FDP’ was kick into its ass during the past parliament election, since not only energetically, they were messing up Germany with their hammering patters and interpretation liberalism, i.e. by supporting monopolists rather than a nice biota of energy companies of different sizes.
Response to the final comment: I guess you know that during the phase of energy transition, all major industries in Germany are exempt from the Energiewende measures, because we are not attempting to commit an economic suicide. In fact, Germany now excessively exports more electricity than it imports, and at the stock market the price for electricity is cheaper than ever which is ‘good’ for example for our basic material industries.

'Instead she will quietly adopt the opposition's plan of punishing the ‘große Verschwender‘ which translates into letting the whole industry pay skyrocketing prices.'
The industry would easily retaliate and brand her as a job killer, a road she definitely does not want to go down.
So far the industry upheld access to massive preferential treatments and that will continue for the time being.
But I agree with you that she will try to deposit the fallout of her liabilities in some hidden account for posterity to solve it.
The energiewende is a hoax and an unproven dogma that has been put as the highest priority and will only pay off with good timing, professional preparation and luck. Can't see anything like that on the horizon.
The social impact will be horrible and it will strangle German demand for consumer goods significantly. Subsidizing Chinese solar panels ain't a macroeconomic masterstroke.
The last 'ethics committee' that gave recommendations about energy policy was probably the Spanish Inquisition being interested in water wheels as a torture option.

Emma has indeed an A chromosome. A category so unique, science does not even have a name for it.

I am always very happy that a Germanic person explains me as a 100% pure Anglo breed (and actually a subset of the Germanics...) how Germany really works.

My academic excursions (which I undertook with StanDford University and Niagara Falls College) to the beautiful home of the Energiewirtschaftsgesetz were very impressive. It was helpful of course, that I was entitled to a scholarship from the holy order of Joshua St. Martimonious as well as one from German Ambassador to which I am grateful until this day.

I learned that the USE of energy is the key. 40% of energy use are about heating buildings and heating water. I visited 'passive houses' over and over.

I am personally very thankful for your achievement, and this I mean sincerely. Making communities as independent as possible and keeping the Kreislaufwirtschaft within a healthy balance is a good thing. Respect for that one and I am not criticizing the engineers behind the idea.

Yet, the political execution must be shitty, when the average CONSUMER price for electricity is still rising, as well as the CO2 account. It just doesn't matter for the climate when I save 1 ton of CO2 with my upgraded building while I desperately need to fly to the Andes for climbing on a regular basis producing 30 tons.

In fact I'm trying to explain you how (some) Germans are thinking, but honestly a learned a lot in live from the Anglo breeds. For example Germans tend to prefer to look backwards. For example during my longer stays in the US and elsewhere), I became familiar with a lot of 'guys' looking forward, an attitude which is very helpful when new challenges are around. Also I'm real fan of Henry Thoreau idea to live on 'own' resources.

Oh this 'Kreislaufwirtschaft' thing has deep rooting in Germany because we lack so many things other nations have in plenty. So in re-using things or making processes more effective seems to be a cultural off-spring of the scarcity in our natural resources.

Finally I totally concur to your last statement. In fact for climate change it does not matter where and why CO2 is emitted, and of course politicians do not tend to follow long-term interests, but rather to make a nice show in the next race for votes.

I will vote for Hillary only to see her and Ms Merkel meet and confer. The elections of declared Democratic nations seem more like high school prom queen elections than anything involving applied math.

This goes equally for the male candidates of recent participation. It may be that Merkel has insights that only a female can hear. Men seem more willing to throw their enthusiasm into projects for a queen than a king. Maybe that effect will be the catalyst for civility that seems so lacking in men lead societies.

In fact Hillary should choose Michelle or Biden as her running mate. Ambassador Kennedy might also make a tea party interesting.

you're funny. Last time I looked Economics has much to do with politics. And since the USA is about the largest trading partner that Ms Merkel governs I submit that it is quite appropriate to consider who Ms Merkel is likely to be dealing with in the future.

Drawing parallels between a person with a PhD who will soon start serving her third consecutive term as German Chancellor with a former American First Lady.
What parallels are you attempting to draw anyways ?
I really don't understand.
Explain.

PHD what is that: post hole digger? That former first lady is a Doctor of Jurisprudence, which is a post graduate degree and she's a Senator of New York; oh and a Secretary of State of the United States. I think she'll be conversant in terms the Chancellor will understand.

The parallels are in disciplined thinking whilst being a woman in a world historically manipulated into its current condition by men. I don't know if Ms Merkel has children but if she does then there's that too. These matter may not seem important to you but The best dates I ever had were with strong, smart, assertive women, who can be empathetic with the exigencies of life.

Angie and Hillery just might be able to be good friends; more impressed with well organized and facilitated tea parties than the size or functionality of their weapons.

Loooook, Reverand Mother Angela Merkel is not PhD. Literally PhD means "Doctor of Philosophy". Unless she hold "Doctor Of Philosophy" degree "literally", she's not a PhD. I assume she has degree from East Germany which had different from Anglo PhD program. So she's not PhD!

Engineers make great politicians for about a day. It's a fair question until you find out about the propensity engineer types have for monopoly. C.F. R. Heilbroner The Worldly Philosophers. Politics is about laws. Who would you rather have making your sausage if not a butcher; the Barber; the gardener; the mechanic?

There is some truth to your juvenile prejudicial global assertion. You overlook the three fingers pointing back at the one who makes the assertion. There are some medical doctors who are the same way. There are some regular folk who are the same way. Together all those "some" make a majority of the population.